Support Centre

You have out of 5 free articles left for the month

Signup for a trial to access unlimited content.

Start Trial

Continue reading on DataGuidance with:

Free Member

Limited Articles

Create an account to continue accessing select articles, resources, and guidance notes.

Free Trial

Unlimited Access

Start your free trial to access unlimited articles, resources, guidance notes, and workspaces.

Finland: Deputy Ombudsman dismisses case on address processing in courts due to lack of competence

The Office of the Data Protection Ombudsman ('the Ombudsman') issued, on 4 May 2022, the Deputy Data Protection Ombudsman's ('the Deputy Ombudsman') decision in Decision No. 2956/182/2019, in which the Deputy Ombudsman dismissed a complaint against the Supreme Court, citing Article 55(3) of the General Data Protection Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/679) ('GDPR') or Article 45(2) of the Criminal Procedure Data Protection Act (1054/2018) ('Criminal Procedure Data Protection Act'), following the recepit of a complaint from an individual.

Background to the decision

In particular, the Deputy Ombudsman stated the complainant had reported that the email address they had given to the Supreme Court as their process address had been replaced by their residential address, which had been done by the Supreme Court against the complainant's notice and consent.

Findings of the Deputy Ombudsman 

In particular, the Deputy Ombudsman outlined that when the judicial function involves the resolution of legal claims by hearing the parties and notifying the parties of the decision, it considered that the address data is then processed by the court in the context of its judicial functions. Therefore, the Deputy Ombudsman stated that the Ombudsman does not have the competence to supervise such processing of personal data on the basis of Article 55(3) of the GDPR or Article 45(2) of the Criminal Procedure Data Protection Act, thereby dismissing the processing of the complainant's request as its falls outside the competence of the Ombudsman.


As a result, the Deputy Ombudsman dismissed the request.

You can read the decision, only available in Finnish, here.